From Abracadabra to Zombies

[The following is
more addressed to your readers but certainly applies to you.]

I was looking for
a reference and chanced upon your web-site. I saw your
references to Dianetics, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, clicked
on them and found they contained much of the usual anti
clap-trap.

reply: I am known
for my anti-claptrap, especially before breakfast. You're in
luck. I haven't had breakfast.

I am a
Scientologist.

reply: Excellent!
I expect your claptrap to be unusual, indeed. How's
Xenu? For those
readers unfamiliar with Scientology's scientific origins, here's
the story in condensed form:

According to L. Ron Hubbard,
the creator of Scientology, Xenu was the dictator of the
"Galactic Confederacy" some 75 million years ago. Xenu brought
billions of his people to Earth in a spacecraft, stacked them
around volcanoes, and dropped hydrogen bombs on them. The
essences of the annihilated stuck around, however, and harass
us today.

The story gets
better, but there is little point in repeating it since it's a
secret and Scientologists deny it.

Before I
discovered Scientology I was a student of philosophy and
religious studies both in the University and on my own. Although
it is not necessary to have studied philosophy and religion to
understand Scientology I was in the unique advantage of
evaluating Scientology from a philosophic and theological
grounding. At first I was skeptical and I did have to re-align
some prior misconceptions. But eventually I got the truths of
Scientology.

reply: I find that
most interesting. You see, I too was a student of philosophy and
religion, both in college and on my own. Even so, I didn't think
of myself as having any advantage in evaluating L. Ron Hubbard's
claims in either Dianetics or in a book the Church of
Scientology sent me unsolicited with an invitation to read and
review. I did. You can see the result by clicking
here. I
was rather surprised that a man who called his religion
"scientology" would have such an obvious hatred of science. He
reminded me of the so-called "creation scientists" and
"intelligent design" advocates who also have a deep contempt for
science, evidenced by their refusal to do science and defer to
God when they reach what they consider an insolvable empirical
problem.

I compare the term
"scientology" with "skeptology." There is a group calling itself
the "skeptologists." True to their name, however, they admire
and advocate skepticism. Scientologists, on the other hand,
don't have any respect for science. I consider the name
deceptive and disrespectful.

The goal and
purpose of Scientology is the complete rehabilitation of the
spiritual being. One soon enough realizes that you are not your
body but a spiritual being (Hubbard uses the Greek term “thetan”).
And this isn’t anything cosmically mysterious or hard to
understand.

reply: I agree
that the concept of a spirit isn't cosmically mysterious or hard
to understand, but that doesn't make it any less vacuous. Before
I would attempt to rehabilitate something, however, I'd make
sure it exists. Anyway, unlike you, I soon enough came to the
realization that I am my body and that when my body is
destroyed, I will be destroyed with it. I have no reason to
believe my "essence" or spirit is dwelling in my body and will
move on to another body when mine decomposes. Spirits and
reincarnation are charming ideas, but they strike me as childish
fantasies best discarded by mature people.

You also have a
mind (which is not the brain), composed of stored mental image
pictures.

reply: You are
making stuff up. Where is the evidence that a mind is "composed
of stored mental image pictures"? What does that even mean? Just
because you can utter gibberish does not make it meaningful.

It is these mental
image pictures---specifically ones containing pain and
unconsciousness---that is the source of all irrationality and
psychosomatic illness.

reply: More
blather. What is an 'image picture of unconsciousness'? You
might consider that one source of irrationality is devotion to
blather.

Dianetics targets
the mind, the goal being the restoration of your self-determined
ability to think and act rationally.

reply: Yet your
words indicate that your brain has been taken over by a
gibberish-loving demon. Your ability to think rationally is not
evident in your brief discourse here. What is coming through is
your faith in unproven or meaningless ideas. You think the mind
is a collection of mental images, including images of pain and
unconsciousness. What is the point of adding this layer of
metaphysical claptrap to your understanding of the brain and
rationality?

Scientology goes a
step beyond and addresses YOU. That Hubbard was able to first
develop a workable (nothing else, not psychiatry, psychology,
etc, ever actually WORKED 100% on every case) technique to disencumber
the mind from all the contra-survival neurosis and psychoses is
remarkable. That he was able to research and formulate workable
techniques to free the spiritual being is nothing short of the
miraculous.

reply: Dude, get a
life!

SCIENTOLOGY WORKS.
You don’t have to “believe” in Scientology or “have faith” in it
any more than you would “believe” or “have faith” in the car
manual you are studying to fix your broken car. You study it,
apply it, and if done correctly you have your car back on the
road running. It’s that simple. So it is with Dianetics and
Scientology.

reply: If
Scientology has worked miracles and wonders in your life, I can
only guess at what you started with, but it couldn't have been
pretty.

Of course if you
are predisposed to all the critical CRAP our detractors have
placed in the media, then Scientology naturally WON’T work for
you. If you distrust the efficacy of your car manual you won’t
be able to fix your car. So Scientology will never work for a
skeptic. You have to be at least willing to see if there
actually is some truth there. Skeptics have no willingness or
purpose other than to be skeptical.

reply: Now you're
getting personal. Not being a skeptic, you have no idea what
purposes skeptics might have. I can't speak for the others, but
this skeptic is devoted to finding the truth whatever it might
be. I read Dianetics and The Rediscovery of the Soul
to find out what Hubbard had to say. I gave an honest appraisal
of both, given my limited talents and knowledge. I find the
claims of your religion to be no less preposterous than the
claims of other religions. I see nothing of rationality or
science in them. I see nothing of logic in them. I see fallacy
after fallacy in them. I see the harm they do. You've found some
good in your religion. Fine. Go and do some good in the world,
but don't claim to be a superior intellect or philosopher
because of your beliefs. And don't presume to know what
motivates others.

Skeptics are
DEVOTED to finding contradictions and proof that support their
skepticism. So, sadly, they are really going nowhere in life.

reply: Wow! How
awful to be devoted to detecting errors and contradictions, or
to be devoted to finding support for our beliefs! The world
would be so much better if we let the contradictions slide and
gave up the ridiculous pursuit of evidence and rational
argument. [Fe]*

All this other
stuff--- is Scientology really a religion?, is it a science?,
etc--- is just irrelevant yack. If you REALLY want to find out
what Dianetics and Scientology is then go to a Church with
enough of an open mind to find out. You sure won’t get what it
is from all the garbage printed here.

GB Randolph

reply: Amen to
that, GB. You have printed some real garbage. I've tried to
clean up the place a bit with my responses, but I doubt you will
appreciate my janitorial services. You apparently don't think it
matters that your religion's founder claimed he was a scientist
and that dianetics is a science, both of which are false, false,
false. I wonder about someone who doesn't care whether his
religious leader knows what he's talking about.

GB Randolph
replies:

I thought I was
dealing with an enlightened compassionate intellectual, a fellow
truth-seeker. Boy, was I wrong! You’re nothing but an angry old
man. And no wonder. Subscribing to that deathtrap materialistic
philosophy! Even a child at a funeral can see there’s something
intrinsically different between the dead person in the coffin
and all the live people about her.

reply: No, I think
you thought you were dealing with another effete
pseudo-intellectual with mush for brains. Does seeing that there
is a difference between a dead and a living person pass for
insight in your corner of the world?

And you think it’s
all just atoms and molecules and a brain!

reply: You're not
being logical, GB. A living being is made up of atoms and
molecules and, sometimes, a brain. Consciousness requires a
material basis, an organization of atoms and molecules. What is
gained by claiming there is an invisible spirit working in a
parallel universe to the brain? The only thing I can see that is
gained is the fantasy belief that "you" will live forever.
Frankly, I hope you do. I hope you live a very long life, too.
But I don't wish Alzheimer's disease on you, nor do I wish you
to have a brain injury. But if either of those occur, you won't
be in any shape to rethink your position. Best to think about it
now, while you've still got your brain intact. A diseased brain
should have no effect on the mind, if your non-materialist view
is correct. Yet, it is obvious that when the brain goes, so does
the mind. Think about it.

And when you die,
you'll fade into non-thinking non-sentient dust?!!! What a
pathetic, silly, immature and stupid delusion. Tragic too,
because you are denying your own basic beingness. Well, the last
laugh’s on you. When that flesh-and-blood corpuscular ticker of
yours finally stops and you pop out of your body and realize
you’re still alive, you’re going to see how wrong you were. And
you’re telling ME to get a life? You’re too dead for that.

reply: Observe,
gentle reader, what Scientology can do for you. Want to bask in
the absolute certain knowledge of your continued existence?
Desire to look forward to the day you can pop out of your body
and realize you're still alive? Are you striving to avoid
pathetic, silly, immature, stupid delusions? Want to sign a
billion-year contract with the organization? Scientology is
calling. This is a limited time offer, however; so act now
before it's too late. What have you got to lose except your
dignity and your life savings? (Actually, I lied about the
limited time offer. If the Scientologists are right, you'll get
plenty of turns popping in and out of bodies. What they don't
tell you, though is that if you convert to Scientology in this
lifetime, you'll come back as Sylvia Browne.)

__________

24 Jun 2005
In your "letters" page for the Dianetics entry, a Scientology salesperson
mentions the Scientology front business "NarConon." The salesperson ("John
Wood") asserted, falsely, that NarConon and Criminon are "effective:" all
the available evidence says the exact opposite.

NARCONON IS BOTH DANGEROUS AND INEFFECTIVE. The California state
school board kicked the Scientologists' front group out of the public school
system after they learned NarConon taught fraudulent and wrong data about
drug abuse and addiction.

The most extensive study performed on NarConon showed only a 6.6%
success rate--- LESS than the 11% success rate of no treatment at all.

The evidence showing NarConon is dangerous and ineffective is easily
and widely available. FBI documents seized from Scientology Inc. shows that
Narconon was started by Scientology's "Guardian's Office:" the same people
who were later sent to prison for burglary, felony trespassing, racketeering,
espionage against the USA, and assorted high crimes.

The Narconon "treatment" has been universally condemned by the medical
community throughout the world as both dangerous and worthless. The Oklahoma
State Board of Health stated:

"Moreover, the multiple findings of fact heretofore entered by the
Board establish that Narconon's program is not safe.

"[....] The Board determines that the Narconon Program is not
effective in the treatment of chemical dependency.

"The Board concludes that the program offered by Narconon- Chilocco is
not medically safe.

"The Board has reviewed the proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law submitted by the Department and Narconon. Any proposed finding of
fact and / or conclusion of law inconsistent with those entered by the Board
is denied.

The State of Utah ceased sending new victims to Narconon once it
discovered that Narconon is merely a recruiting front for Scientology. This
story was aired on FOX News-13 Tuesday February 22, 2000 at 9:00PM MST and
had several follow-ups during the week after.

Narconon's bogus "detoxification" process has been proven to be
medical nonsense. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop had this to say
about the Narconon treatment:

"It's dangerous. I don't think L. Ron Hubbard has credibility in the
scientific world. The author's suggestions about detoxification can be
detrimental to [one's] health."

Michigan Corrections Department psychologist John Hand called Narconon
"So misleading as to be termed a 'con.'" Hand said, "They are phony, a front
for the Church of Scientology. We found out in Michigan that most of the
money that we were paying Narconon was laundered back into the Church of
Scientology." [Detroit News Feb. 11 1980] The study of Narconon in the
Michigan penal system concluded, "graduates of the Narconon program do not
do as well as our [prison] population in general." They discovered that
Narconon made things worse, not better, for those dependant on drugs.

Doctor Wolfgang Heckmann, who is the "Drugs Delegate" of Berlin,
performed a study of Narconon's "success" and found that at its best,
Narconon's "success" is "at most 10%". His report stated:

Finally, the question of the program's success is also of importance
to assessing the quality of the institution. Looking at earlier statements
by Narconon according to which the institution's average rate of success is
far above the average, the list of names provided does not paint a very
favorable picture. From their own figures, the rate of success is calculated
to be, at most, 10%. In addition to that, the idea of social reintegration
is understood differently by Narconon than elsewhere in that a not
inconsiderable number of the people named as successes work as staff at
Narconon, and some of those even live in the building. In addition, there
are justified misgivings as to the credibility of the chances of success.

Dr. Heckmann found that in his study of 145 people subjected to the
Narconon "treatment," only 10 claimed they were "off drugs" during a
follow-up visit after "treatment." Dr. Heckmann also mentioned in his report
to the Berlin Senate that Narconon is owned, run, and part of Scientology
Inc.

Doctor James J. Kenney, Ph.D., RD, of The National Council Against
Health Fraud stated that the Narconon treatment poses very serious health
risks. The "treatment" involves ingesting dangerous amounts of niacin, which
is hepatotoxic. He stated: "Health professionals who subject troubled people
(many with psychiatric illnesses and / or severe emotional problems) to this
unproven detoxification program are at best unethical and at worst guilty of
health fraud." You may write to him to confirm this, at:

When those who require drug abuse intervention go to Narconon, they
may expend their resources so that they are no longer able to seek out and
acquire valid health services.

Narconon's "success rate" is 6.6%, which is no better than no drug
intervention at all. One independent study of Narconon was performed in
Sweden: this study observed 61 people who had been subjected to the
"treatment." Of those 61 people, only 4 admitted they were not back to
abusing drugs a year later--- a "success rate" of 6.6%. The study was
performed in May of 1981, by social worker Peter Gerdman in Stockholm. Swiss
doctors, such as Dr. Vigilli Venzin, stated emphatically that Narconon's
"treatment" is "...absolute rubbish and medically questionable."

David Rice

reply: It's hard to believe that the fine folks at Scientology.con
would make exaggerated claims about anything. My faith in mankind has been
shattered once again.

22 Sep 2000
Several times recently it seems you've made statements that scientologists
don't believe in evolution, that we are all planted here by aliens. That's
about half right. In one of his earliest books "The History of
Man" Hubbard claimed to have proven evolution. This 'proof' was
obtained the same way as all his other 'research' (when any was actually
done), by using their hypnotic regression techniques of auditing. So a
scientologist would say evolution is a fact, LRH proved it.

Not being a scientologist I might not be understanding this
correctly, but his story is there are two parts to a person, the spirit or
thetan, and the genetic entity. The genetic entity evolved here on earth,
the thetans after billions of years of reincarnation in various alien
civilizations were captured and imprisoned on this planet.

As for the model of 'evolution' given in the book, I understand it
is one of the most laughable books claiming to be scientifically proven.
According to the book the evolutionary branch leading to humans also
included such things as clams and the Piltdown man. You can read a nice
commentary on the book
here.

Marc Berard

reply: The reference to aliens has to do with Xenu
and some sort of hydrogen bomb attack on earth 75,000,000 years
ago. But there is also a work of Hubbard's called "A Note on
Excalibur" in which he denies evolution and Darwinian natural
selection in favor of some sort of teleological vitalism.

The whole Xenu story is from OT III, which I have read, and even
have scans of. It wasn't an attack on earth, he just solved the Galactic
Confederations' overpopulation problems by having all 13 trillion people
captured (called them in for tax audits and captured them that way)
frozen, transported in space ships resembling DC 3s without the propeller.
Dumped on the volcanoes, nuked, their spirits captured by electric
ribbons, show confusing 3-D films for 36 days. (guess it was the first
MST3K marathon) These films implanted people with all kinds of delusions
and problems, including ALL of the worlds religions. And today our bodies
contain thousands of these abused spirits. All our problems and illnesses
are supposed to be caused by these 'body thetans', and OT III is supposed
to teach you how to telepathically contact them and make them let go.Marc Berard

Mr. Carroll,

I just finished reading from your Skeptics dictionary on the
WWW, specifically the section concerning dianetics. Yours was a
view I had not heard about dianetics and scientology. After
working for a scientologist who attempted to coerce me into a
dianetic class, I have never picked up the book and therefore
couldn't tell you about its scientific claims. I can, however,
tell you that the scientologists I met while in this woman's
employ did not think they were doing God's work. Quite the
opposite. They were solely interested in recruiting more
scientologists.

A representative from a "management" company would
come to the office whenever the doctor's "engrams"
kicked in (this was usually when she had difficulty with her
father, who was vehemently opposed to her being a scientologist).
This representative, who called himself a counselor, wanted me to
allow him access to patient files so he could see which ones were
likely candidates for scientology auditing. For each person the
doctor convinced to sign up for classes, she received a discount
on her own auditing. I know of at least two patients who did
agree to taking a dianetics course on the doctors
"recommendation." However, access to patient files are
protected by federal law, and I wasn't about to be the one to
open them to him.

The same management company wanted me to try to get blank
"counter" checks from patients to keep in their files,
just in case they forgot to bring their checkbook to the clinic.
After double checking it with a local bank manager friend, I
informed this "counselor" that such action was illegal.

Medicare patients were routinely lied to about their coverage,
all under the authority and supervision of the
"management" company. Also under this company, the
doctor was hard pressed to get new patients. She was to turn in
her "statistics" each week. These statistics consisted
of me making a chart of how many patients she saw each week. No
calculations of means or any other even basic statistical
analysis, just a chart of the number of patients each week. They
gave the doctor what the "mean" was supposed to be, and
if she didn't reach it, then there was obviously a problem with
the engrams and more counseling was needed. At one seminar, we
were instructed on how to get patients to pay in advance for
treatment, preferably in cash. While that is legal, the doctors
were told they didn't need to put such cash in a trust fund for
that patient, which is illegal.

We were also taught how not to let the patients say no to
treatment. We were told that anyone who believed that patients
had the right to free thought should never come in contact with
the patients. We were instructed to "ruin" any argument
the patient had concerning their treatment. This seminar cost the
doctor approximately $1000. Naturally, this is only one account
of the character of scientologists. But I don't think my opinion
is solitary. Not only is dianetics not a science, but scientology
is not a church. It's a mass-marketing scheme to make money.
Hubbard's son wrote a book called "L. Ron Hubbard: Myth or
Madman?" In it, L. Ron Hubbard is quoted as saying to a
convention of science fiction writers, "If you want to make
money, start a religion."

To me, that says it all.

Julie Richard

Mr. Carroll, Thank you for your reply. If you have not already
done so, you may want to contact Time magazine for more
information about scientologists tactics. A few years ago, they
did a rather extensive cover story on scientology, and the author
received numerous threats, both physical and legal in nature. So
do not be surprised if you receive the same. Personally, I have
no objection to your including my story to your dictionary, nor
do I object to my name being used. Although I am fully aware of
what scientologists can do to people who oppose them (ask the
former mayor of Clearwater, Florida, who was framed and later
exonerated on a hit-and-run murder charges), I have no intention
of hiding behind anonymity.

Thank you for your time and effort in exposing the likes of
scientologists.

Julie Richard

reply: I have only received a few notes from Scientologists, none of them threatening.

Mr. Carroll,

As far as prosecutions go, there were several high-ranking
members of scientology who were arrested during a raid on
scientology headquarters by the IRS. It was during this raid that
the evidence was found that they had framed the mayor of
Clearwater. There was also a reporter who was framed for arson.
One of the scientologists arrested was Hubbard's wife. This was
several years ago (I want to say late 70's, early 80's), but the
article in Time had all the details. If you ever are in
Clearwater, Florida you won't believe your eyes. It looks like a
navy base, with all the low level scientologists walking around
in their white and blue uniforms. These are the members of the
"Sea-Org" and have to sign million year contracts.
They're usually people who don't have professions that will bring
in thousands of dollars to the "church," so they're
essentially slave labor for the hotels and stores. There are
several stories of the way they live, and none are pretty.

Julie Richard

23 Jul 1997
I just read your Skeptic's Dictionary entry on Dianetics with interest. I
think I can add a bit to the history of this "science" and "religion."

Dianetics came out before the book you cite; Hubbard introduced it in the
May, 1950, issue of Astounding Science Fiction, the earlier version of the
magazine now called Analog. He was a popular contributor to Astounding, and I
was a fan of his writing.

At the time, I was friendly with the late Theodore Sturgeon, a
distinguished science-fiction writer whose work I admired. Ted knew Hubbard
fairly well, and told me that at a sci-fi convention the previous year
Hubbard had told him and several other writers something like this:
"You guys just wait. I've thought up a racket that's going to make me very
rich. You'll hear about it in a few months."

Nevertheless, we were intrigued, and Ted and I tried "auditing" each other
a few times. We dropped it partly because we didn't think it made much sense
and, I have to admit, because Ted was much better at it than I was; he'd have
made a good psychotherapist.

As to the Church of Scientology, I remember how that came about, though I'm
a bit hazy on the details. The organization was then known as the Hubbard
Dianetic Institute, and he had moved the headquarters several times, as it
ran into tax and legal troubles of one kind or another. At some point in the
1950s, I believe it was, the Institute was headquartered in Wichita, Kansas,
and having a lot of trouble with the state and Federal tax authorities. Then
Hubbard had the bright idea of turning the institute into a church, which
would be tax exempt! And he got away with it. So far as I know, only Germany
refuses to recognize Scientology as a religion, and the "church" is fighting
the German government with everything it has.

By the way, Hubbard didn't start by using the term "engram," which of
course he borrowed from biochemistry. In the Astounding article that
introduced Dianetics, he called them "Norns," after the witches of Norse
mythology. When the book was published, his Norns had been transmogrified
into engrams.

Thanks for the Skeptic's Dictionary. I love it. It's my belief that the
current popularity of every kind of nonsense from acupuncture and astrology
to reflexology, homeopathy, naturopathy, therapeutic touch and all the other
"holistic" therapies is the result of a breakdown in our educational system
some time after World War II. People who have been taught to think aren't
susceptible to this kind of stuff.

Keep up the good work.Al Berger

reply: I wish it were simply a matter of a broken educational system. We might be able to fix that. I think the tendency to magical thinking is rather basic and universal. Compulsory education for the masses has been somewhat successful in mitigating the spread of weird beliefs and irrational thinking. But it is nearly impossible to counteract the power of the mass media to glamorize and exaggerate; to distort and pervert; to prey upon irrational desires, fears and hopes; to mystify the mundane and validate the irrational as it entertains. Traditional religions used to satisfy the thirst for the magical, but they have been unable, for the most part, to modify themselves sufficiently to compete with forces which can make an Andrew Cunanan seem more significant and interesting than a Justice William Brennan who died on the same day as the mentally ill killer but who received much less publicity.

23 Oct 96 I'm someone who's been fascinated (even morbidly so) by
Scientology for many years now. The following comments may be a
bit of a quibble but after reading the text I can't just put them
aside.

In the third paragraph you mention that Scientology has no
'cosmological myths.' What, however, of the various stories of
past star-spanning civilizations such as the Marcab Confederacy;
the space-tyrant Xenu (or Xemu, take your choice); the 'loyal
officers' who defeated and imprisoned him in the so-called 'Wall
of Fire' (the notorious incident which happened 75 trillion years
ago which involved detonation of h-bombs near well-known
volcanoes which didn't even exist and is supposed to be the root
cause of all humanity's current travail) and who are echoed today
by the Scientology 'monastic' order, the Sea Organization? Would
those not suffice as such myths, or do I misuse the definition?

reply: These stories sound like the stuff of fantasy and
science fiction. Some might find such stories interesting,
entertaining or even enlightening. The stories may even be myths.
But they're not cosmological, i.e., they are
not an attempt to answer fundamental ontological questions about
the nature or origin of the cosmos (universe), such as "Why
is there something rather than nothing?" Or "How did
the cosmos originate?" "Is there a creator of the
universe?" etc.

As I said, the above is really quibbling on my part, I'm
sure. On the whole, the entry draws connections I've only
speculated about with my limited (and largely self-)
philosophical training. To put a point on it, I've always
understood that LRH really only badly reinvented the wheel, just
not exactly how. Now, however, I have a clue. Thanks.

And I cannot but agree that no matter how Scientology
positions itself in the lives of its followers, it is not a
religion at all.Justin the Blue

23 Dec 1996
I just want to say that Scientology got me off drugs when I was a
teenager and has given me a purposeful direction in life.

I have a strong desire to actually DO something about some
of the problems of our society rather than just talk about them.
I know that Narconon (the drug rehab that uses L. Ron Hubbard's
technology) is an effective solution to addiction since it saved
my friend's life from alcoholism. While I worked there, it also
saved the life of a man who had been addicted to injectable
methadone for 14 years! I also know that Criminon (the criminal
rehab that uses LRH technology) is effective, as is Applied
Scholastics (LRH's education technology and teaching method) in
combatting illiteracy. These are just a few of the solutions that
LRH discovered and made available to anyone who wishes to use
them. For more details, have a look at http://www.scientology.org.

By telling people about these solutions (incidentally, none
of which have anything to do with religion or belief in
anything), I know I can make the world a safer, saner and happier
place for all.

John Wood

Read on for some more comments from Mr. Wood.

28 Jan 1997

According to the US government, courts in many countries
around the world and academic experts, Scientology is a bona fide
religion.

reply: According to our Constitution, the U.S. government
is not supposed to make any laws respecting religion, which I
take to mean that the government is not legally allowed to define
what is or isn't a religion. I've never taken a vow of silence on
the matter of defining religion. Neither did L. Ron Hubbard. As
for the rest of the world, they can call Scientology anything
they want. Finally, I have yet to see an academic expert who has
published a book on world religions which even mentions
Scientology, much less considers it to be a religion. When the
historians of religion start calling Scientology a religion, I
may change my mind.

Who says myths have anything to do with it?

reply: Scientology has fantasies, not myths. A religion
without myths is a mythtery to me.

Our creed can be found at the back of the "What is
Scientology" book. It redefines the word "ethics"
and puts the subject to practical use for individuals and helps
countless organisations around the world succeed in business.

reply: Secular humanists have a creed, too. That doesn't
make secular humanism a religion. I have to admit, though, that
if your new ethics is aimed at making money, then you are in
harmony with many Christians who seem to think that God shows His
love by making people rich.

There is nothing obscure in Scientology - it is all
extremely precise and exact. There is no dogma in Scientology.
Yes, LRH was a science fiction writer. So what? Jesus was a
carpenter.

reply: There is nothing obscure in the kabbala, either. And
I used to be a taxi driver.

I haven't had a chance to read the rest of this page but if
it is as inaccurate as the first paragraph, I urge you to delete
it immediately. The information I have provided is not difficult
to find. It's available on our web site and is in the "What
is Scientology" book which can be found in almost every
library in the world! You are, therefore, simply spreading lies,
knowingly, about my religion. You're not anything to do with the
German government are you by any chance?

Regards,John Wood

reply: Be careful, John. There are scientologists in
Germany, too. Some of them may even be in the government. As for
deleting this page, sure John. Why not? I'll delete it just for
you.

__________

*
[Fe] is code for irony. Some readers take everything I write literally. I hope
that when they see [Fe] they'll realize that I mean the opposite of what I am
saying if taken literally. My editor, John Renish, introduced me to this code.